Hobb I: The Fool is [CENSOREDSPOILER]

[shortstark]

[quote name='Shaun Snow' post='1388693' date='Jun 8 2008, 15.49']On her newsgroup Robin recently asked fans what they thought of the idea of a book featuring Fitz and the Fool but written from a different PoV. She emphasied that people shouldn't take that as evidence of anything, but I think its an interesting idea.

Oh, and IMO the Fool's a man with a gay crush on his straight best friend.[/quote]

I hope the fans response to this question was an overwhelming... HELL YES!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Calibandar]

It was, but why not respond here yourself:

[url="http://webnews.sff.net/read?cmd=xover&group=sff.people.robin-hobb&from=-10"]http://webnews.sff.net/read?cmd=xover&...bb&from=-10[/url]

[Gigei]

I would say no.

It would just rehash what we already know unless she means like a simple short story or perhaps a novellete. That wouldn't be too dire but gaaah another trilogy or long book would be way too much.

[RedEyedGhost]

I would love to see another Six Duchies trilogy (if it is done right). My personal preference would be Nettle as the main character with some serious coterie action going on, and Fitz/The Fool as peripheral characters.

This thread finally got me to start reading [u]Renegade's Magic[/u]... mixed feelings so far.

[Galactus]

Am I the only one who really liked the Soldier Son triology? I thought it was all sorts of neat and weird and strange but kinda cool (I liked it better than Liveship)

[Budgie]

[quote]Am I the only one who really liked the Soldier Son triology? I thought it was all sorts of neat and weird and strange but kinda cool (I liked it better than Liveship)[/quote]

I enjoyed the Soldier son trilogy very much. (it could be because i was incapacitated at home after an ankle operation & i read the first book & liked it a lot).

As for the Fool i always saw him as being male & in the liveship trilogy dressing up as a woman.

[Shryke]

[quote name='Gigei' post='1387595' date='Jun 7 2008, 06.41']QFT!

I just can't wrap my mind around the idea that the Fool is female. Male, maybe...but if so why the mystery, huh? That's why I prefer the no gender theory although I could probably get behind the both/switching gender theory. I just can't think why the Fool would make a big deal out of it, he tells Fitz pretty much everything but when it comes to his gender, oh no its TOP SECRET.[/quote]

He DOESN'T keep it a secret.

The thing is, Fitz NEVER ASKS!!!

Fitz thinks he's a man, has no evidence to the contrary, and so the subject never comes up. It's not like Fitz asks "Do you have a dick?" and the Fool gets all evasive. Hell, the scene in Tawny Man where they finally talk about the Fools feelings hints fairly heavily that he IS a man. It's got that feeling of "I love you, but I know your not into Men". Regardless of that, even their the subject of the Fools gender is not brought up even there.

Any evidence for the Fool not being a man is at best circumstantial.


[quote name='Galactus' post='1389710' date='Jun 9 2008, 06.36']Am I the only one who really liked the Soldier Son triology? I thought it was all sorts of neat and weird and strange but kinda cool (I liked it better than Liveship)[/quote]

Eh, it was ok. A little boring and slow imo, and I fucking hate the main character as a person.

[Galactus]

[quote]Eh, it was ok. A little boring and slow imo, and I fucking hate the main character as a person.[/quote]

That, incidentally was what I liked about it. Nevere is a very unusual person for a protagonist.

[Shryke]

Agreed. Still, I wanted to fucking punch him in the face so much. Damn fat-ass whiny bitch.

I'm still gonna read the 3rd book, as I did enjoy the first 2 somewhat.

[Benjen Stark]

[quote name='Galactus' post='1389710' date='Jun 9 2008, 05.36']Am I the only one who really liked the Soldier Son triology? I thought it was all sorts of neat and weird and strange but kinda cool (I liked it better than Liveship)[/quote]
I liked the stuff happening around Nevarre and the other characters, but I couldn't manage to press on with the second book the moment those other characters were no longer on stage. Nevarre was distinctly less than interesting to me. Fitz's insular worldview worked because he was likable despite his faults and he tended to rise above limitations. Nevarre... not so much. Nevarre is the male Malta/Althea. It desperately needed other POVs for a break from him.

I'd rank it Farseer trilogy, Tawny Man trilogy, Liveships, then Soldier Son with Soldier son well, well behind Liveships. If I had read glowing reports of the rest of the series, I might have pressed on despite my growing distaste, but I did not.

[hadaad]

I thought Soldier's Son was very good. I don't know how it ranks against Tawny Man/Farseer because they're so completely different. But that's good in itself because how many times do you see an author go that far away from what has worked for her/him in the past?

Nevare was a good protagonist in that he was flawed and made stupid decisions, just like Fitz made stupid decisions. His bitterness went beyond Fitz's, that's for sure, but I don't think that made him an unbelievable or artificial character.

I'm looking forward to what Hobb will be bringing up next and I'll be very glad if it's as good as Soldier's Son.

[The Pita]

[quote]It's not like Fitz asks "Do you have a dick?" and the Fool gets all evasive[/quote]
I thought he did in Royal Assassin, and Fool gets insulted and asks him how he would feel if the Fool would as proof of his being a man.
Or something like that.

[Galactus]

[quote]I liked the stuff happening around Nevarre and the other characters, but I couldn't manage to press on with the second book the moment those other characters were no longer on stage. Nevarre was distinctly less than interesting to me. Fitz's insular worldview worked because he was likable despite his faults and he tended to rise above limitations. Nevarre... not so much. Nevarre is the male Malta/Althea. It desperately needed other POVs for a break from him.

I'd rank it Farseer trilogy, Tawny Man trilogy, Liveships, then Soldier Son with Soldier son well, well behind Liveships. If I had read glowing reports of the rest of the series, I might have pressed on despite my growing distaste,[/quote]

I'd rank Soldier Son above Liveship actually (but I never liked Liveship that much, still better than 90% of the fantasy out there, but nowhere near Farseer or Tawny Man)

[Gigei]

[quote name='Un-Yearded Pita' post='1390913' date='Jun 9 2008, 16.39']I thought he did in Royal Assassin, and Fool gets insulted and asks him how he would feel if the Fool would as proof of his being a man.
Or something like that.[/quote]

That is what I recall. The Fool was definitely evasive, he refused to give a straight answer as to whether he is male or female.

[Shryke]

Or, you know, he pointed how rude a question it was.

Little Child: "Excuse me, but do you really have a penis? Cause you look all effeminate and asexual to me"

He wasn't evasive, he was insulted.

[Imp]

Just reread the last few chapters of fools fate and I can't see how the fools female theory can stand up. Fitz strips him naked to clean him off for cremation, then enters his body and heals him from the inside. There's no "Oh my god he's a woman?!?!" moment, and all the while he refers to the fool as a he. Pretty weird behavior if the fool was a female.

[The Pita]

That pretty much cinches it I think.
Besides, the Fool is never insulted by Fitz! Except for once every chapter.

[Samalander]

[quote name='Imp' post='1395206' date='Jun 12 2008, 08.29']Just reread the last few chapters of fools fate and I can't see how the fools female theory can stand up. Fitz strips him naked to clean him off for cremation, then enters his body and heals him from the inside. There's no "Oh my god he's a woman?!?!" moment, and all the while he refers to the fool as a he. Pretty weird behavior if the fool was a female.[/quote]
Where was the "Oh my god, Raeghar didn't rape my sister" in the Ned POV?

[Crannogman]

There's a difference.

If someone says something you know isn't true but you don't want to reveal your knowledge, I for one do not tend to actively, literally think "That never happened!" or something to that effect.

Instead, that knowledge is there in the back of my head and I'll just subtly change the subject or make an evasive comment. Basically, what Ned does in his PoV.

Ned has tons of knowledge that isn't spelled out, things he realises implicitly but are never put on the page in so many words. Because... if it's something you've known for years, and particularly if it's something you know you must keep hidden, you don't tend to dwell on it explicitly. It's... pushed away. Or that is what I would do at least.

But if I see something that suddenly contradicts a very definite, important truth I have believed all my life... I'd be shocked and there -definitely- would be hundreds of thoughts racing through my head. "No, no that's impossible... the FOOL? No... it can't be... the bard was right after all? But how could..."

[Rimmer]

Partly just playing devil's advocate, but isn't the story told as if Fitz is writing it years later? Couldn't he have just purposely not mentioned something so personal to the Fool?